• MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I hate to say it, but regardless of one’s stance, on his back should be “Public perception of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-mile Island.”

    I say regardless of one’s stance, because even if the public’s perceptions are off…when we remember those incidents but not how much time was in between them or the relative infrequency of disasters, they can have outsized effects on public attitude.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Totally. Tinpot dictators getting nukes is nothing to worry about. And the waste can just be handwaved away. After all, they have a storage facility in Finland that will probably come online in a couple of years. Problem solved.

    • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The waste is a fair point - storage isn’t a long term solution but then I suppose it can be managed in the interim, not like the effects of climate change.

      I’m not seeing your point of “nukes” though?

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I still prefer 47 grams of nuclear waste over 1950 Kg of coal pollution in the air.

        That is for the same amount of energy.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        More nuclear plants means more capacity and diversification in supply chains, i.e. it’s easier to acquire technology and supplies through dark channels. That will lead to more proliferation. Where do you think North Korea got its nukes? The answer is Pakistan, by the way.

  • WallEx@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Renewables are better, cheaper and more scalable. Its not even close. Look at Denmark for how it can be done.

  • then_three_more@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Just because it’s safe doesn’t mean it’s the best we have right now.

    • It’s massively expensive to set up
    • It’s massively expensive to decommission at end of life
    • Almost half of the fuel you need to run them comes from a country dangerously close to Russia. (This one is slightly less of a thing now that Russia has bogged itself down in Ukraine)
    • It takes a long time to set up.
    • It has an image problem.

    A combination of solar, wind, wave, tidal, more traditional hydro and geothermal (most of the cost with this is digging the holes. We’ve got a lot of deep old mines that can be repurposed) can easily be built to over capacity and or alongside adequate storage is the best solution in the here and now.

  • 𝕨𝕒𝕤𝕒𝕓𝕚@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Nuclear waste is still an unsolved problem that absolutely no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole. Also nuclear power is a pretty expensive method of power generation and can’t be insured, leaving all risk of disaster on the shoulders of society. To be clear: society will be pretty fucked when a nuclear disaster happens anyway.

    It’s a lot better than coal, though.

  • Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    But we don’t really have it now, which is the main problem. In the time it takes to build these things (also for the money it takes), we could plaster everything full with renewables and come up with a decentralized storage solution. Plus, being dependent on Kazachstan for fissile material seems very… stupid?

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    lol nuclear is really uneconommical, way too expensive and therefore really inefficient. You need 10-20 years to build a plant for energy 3 times more expensive than wind. For plants that still require mining. That produce waste we cannot store and still cannot reuse (except for one small test plant). For plants that no insurance company want to insure and energy companies dont like to build without huge government subsidies.

    I know lemmy and reddit have a hard on for nuclear energy because people who dont know anything about it think its cool. But this post is ridiculous even for lemmy standards.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Where the fuck we gonna put all the waste product? I’m not saying nuclear power is bad, far from it, but we have two problems here:

    • Its cost prohibitive to build new Third Generation reactors that are fault tolerant, and moreso to assure that all the Second Generation reactors are fully fault tolerant given how adjacent they are to flood plains and fault lines in the US
    • Where the fuck are we gonna put the waste at? Yucca Mountain is off the table for good, WIPP is nearing capacity for a pilot plant, and we have nothing like Onkalo planned out despite the funding being there many times over
  • CreamRod@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Thats not even funny. It’s not even a meme. It’s just straight outright corporate propaganda. F off with that, Pinkerton!

  • words_number@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s unsafe, not renewable, not independent from natural resources (which might not be present in your country, so you need to buy from dictators) and last but not least crazy expensive.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s not renewable, but known reserves will power the world for a century, based solely on current average efficiency and not modern improvements

    • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      AFAIK in the USA, nuclear energy is the safest per unit energy generated. Solar is more “dangerous” simply because you can fall off a roof.

      Nuclear energy has huge risks and potential for safety issues, yes. But sticking to the numbers, it is extremely safe.

    • Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Need to buy from dictators?

      I didn’t realize Australia and Canada who has highest uranium reserves are dictators. Canada also used to be highest uranium producer until relatively recently.

      There is no need. Though Kazakhstan and Russia may be cheapest if you’re near there.